Great speech but anytime Obama shows graciousness and generosity towards HRC, the usual high volume suspects on Salon accuse him of being arrogant. Of course in the seconds it took to finish this note, several may have chimed in.

We should just forget the whole primary thing and have every democrat in the country mail in their vote tomorrow. By Friday we should count them up and the one with the most votes is the nominee. No caucus wierdness, no disqualified elections. Everyone votes tomorrow and highest number wins!

If that isn't what you want, what exactly do you want? I mean besides Clinton as the nominee despite the stated rules of the DNC (as developed by Bill Clinton and Harold Ickes). This was set up years in advance. There will be one winner and MORE THAN ONE LOSER. Imagine how Biden, Edwards and the others must feel. If only they had hung in there...

I have simpler and shorter math: If she "won the popular vote by a landslide", she would be the candidate. That's how elections work.

This string cracks me up. I was excoriated a few months ago when I suggested that Clinton might end up Obama's VP. "She would never lower herself to that!" "That would be an insult!" "She'll form a third party first!"

Now all you guys are insisting it is her right because of the "18 million" (which includes people who will vote democrat anyways, republicans who voted for Clinton because they were told to, and racists who voted for Clinton because the idea of a mixed race president was an abomination to them). It isn't her right anymore than it would be Al Gore's demanding the presidential slot since, after all, he got way more than 18 million votes in 2000, eh?

Hate to pile on here but you say you have to go with polling "at the time" rather than current 50/50 estimates. I thought the whole issue was the will of the voters and electability and all that. That would make it a wash, right? To have the rules committee divvy them up 50/50 right? Or is yet another case of cherrypicking the votes you wish to count, the states you wish to count, the elections you wish to count, and the demographics you wish to count?

democratic party of course...although demographic party might not be a bad description. Why don't these typos seem apparent while typing them?

Discussing the issue with my mother, a former mayor, she fervently said Clinton must win "to show all those assholes she had to put up with" while in office. I suggested nicely (it was mother's day after all) that this was not entirely rational but I promised I would vote for Clinton if she was nominee if she would promise to vote for Obama. She didn't answer to this. The true racists in the demographic party were never going to vote for him anyways. I am concerned about the other "Clinton Demographic" of older women who may be carrying some serious grudges (glass ceilings, unequal pay, cheating husbands, etc.) and will not go with the guy unless Clinton works to convince them herself. Perhaps they no longer need to worry about choice or having their sons and daughters deployed to an unneccessary war, but what about their grandaughters and grandsons? What future for them with another 4 years of Bushism?

Could be but I think the scorched earth stops tomorrow. Once Clinton stops campaigning and stops claiming victory for this and that (and once the press stops declaring "momentum!" with every little success), all attention turns to Obama vs McCain. Even if HRC does not actively work for Obama, an unfortunate possibility, her podium is gone, the press dismissed, and the campaign staff on unpaid leave. She will have a prominent place at the convention which will briefly reignite the fervor which will then die down again. If Obama loses, the Clinton people get to say "I told you so". If Obama wins, hopefully they will devote their energy to some other worthy political cause (but I expect no mea culpas from them for being both wrong and ugly about it).

I think you hit the wrong discussion with this post. You are first up though. Way to go!

So what's round on the ends and high in the middle?

No, not Indiana.

Apparently, you didn't get the memo from the other high volume salon posters about HRC taking the VP slot.

Never in a million years would she demean herself to serve as second banana to a empty-suit, muslim, dishonest usurper like Obama. Or something like that.

(From memory)

Hoolihan: "If you don't do something I'll resign my commission!"

Blake: "OK, Major, if you feel that way, resign your goddamn commission"

Or go form PUMA, or vote for McCain, or pay for a special study to prove you were wronged, or sue the DNC, or hold your breath until you turn blue. You folks aren't real democrats anyways

Googling "clinton + ego" versus "obama + ego", Hillary wins the popular vote by 34,000 hits!

I think that is sarcasm but I'm not sure where you are going with it. As for graciousness, other than a few jerks, it has mostly been "Clinton, you've lost, please leave but don't worry I'll vote for you if I have too" versus "How can the DNC force a muslim empty suit upon the nation; I'm voting McCain!". I can only wonder what the verbiage would be with results reversed. I guess we'll find out if Obama loses in the fall.

I would like to think that shawn, kate, proud texas, and their like will drift off with what I anticipate will be a conciliatory, unifying Clinton speech on tuesday night. But then I would like to think I will win the lotto, too.